Yingluck will have to make case of persecution for political asylum

[rooster59]

Yingluck will have to make case of persecution for political asylum

By The Sunday Nation

 

ex-PM Yingluck Shinawatra

 

MANY POSSIBLE solutions have been circulated about the way that fugitive ex-PM Yingluck Shinawatra will resolve her flight from Thailand, which might last a lifetime. One is that she will seek political asylum in the United Kingdom, where her brother Thaksin, who has also fled Thai legal cases, has spent time running businesses, as well as living in Dubai.

 

The Nation’s Wasamon Audjarint talked with Prasit Piwawatthanaphanit, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, on the general instruments involved with the political asylum-seeking procedure that may apply in Yingluck’s case, as well as the possibility of the UK extraditing her back to Thailand.

 

Basically speaking, “political asylum” is a legal relationship between an asylum seeker and the requested state. According to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution.

 

However, no state is obliged by domestic or international law to grant political asylum. The country uses its sovereign powers to decide whether to grant a request or not.

 

Consequently, if Yingluck applies for political asylum in the UK, the British authorities will consider whether the charge of which she has been found guilty – negligence in regard to the rice-pledging scheme which brought financial damage to the country – is really a “political offence”, thus making her eligible for asylum. In the UK, it is the Home Office that oversees this process.

 

Asylum seekers generally claim that they fear persecution on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a certain group or political opinion.

 

The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees are also often relied on when considering seekers’ conditions.

 

There is no exact definition of what constitutes a political offence. Courts may take several factors into consideration as to whether an offence is political or criminal. It should be noted that not only the act of alleged offender is considered, but also any possible political motive and the structure of the country from which a person has fled.

 

In recent decisions in European courts, the emphasis has been on protecting the rights of the defendants.

 

It is also understood among Western countries that a political offender should not be extradited simply because they have different political opinions to the norms of their society. The only exception is if they are guilty of a crime such as murder or terrorism.

 

Thaksin has said that the Thai justice process since the 2006 coup, which threw him out office as prime minister, is unfair to him.

 

Yingluck, whose government was also thrown in a coup, would probably follow the same path.

 

The Thai authorities’ legal team, meanwhile, might argue that Yingluck had agreed to go along with the judicial process. Her act of fleeing right before the verdict could mean that she simply wanted to avoid punishment, they might say.

 

Another channel that might be used is the extradition treaty between Thailand and the UK that was signed in 1912 and has been effective since.

 

There are conditions that will activate extradition and one of them is if an offender has been guilty of a crime that violates the laws of both their original country and the one where they are seeking asylum. This is called “double criminality”.

 

Consequently, if Yingluck’s offence under Thai law for negligence in state duty also violates any British law, she may well be extradited – if she is found in the UK and if Thailand makes such a request.

 

Background 

 

Yingluck is at present a fugitive convict. She fled before her court verdict was due to be read on August 25 in a dereliction case over her government ‘s rice-pledging scheme, which was accused of being plagued by corruption, causing massive losses to the state.

 

The Supreme Court eventually ruled on her case on September 27 and she had 30 days to make an appeal in person.

 

She did not do so, which means the case is technically concluded. In accordance with new legal procedures for cases against politicians, the statute of limitation does not apply to the case, which apparently means her status as a fugitive is permanent. 

 

Last week, police revealed that all four Thai passports held by Yingluck had been revoked by the Foreign Ministry following a request from police. 

 

The cancellation was Thai authorities’ latest action relating to the fugitive former premier, who was sentenced for five years in absentia for failing to prevent corruption in her government’s rice-pledging scheme. They have been in contact with Interpol, the international police agency, in an attempt to locate and catch her.

 

The UK last week informed Thailand that if Yingluck were to stay in that country, it would not involve political asylum, according to Thai Foreign Affairs Minister Don Pramudwinai. 

 

“The UK said that if Yingluck came to stay in the UK, there would not be an issue of political asylum. If she wanted to stay, she would need to follow the normal immigration process,” Don had said, responding to a reporter’s question whether Yingluck had already been granted political asylum.

 

Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai

 

A source in Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party, meanwhile, speculated that the former premier was seeking asylum in unspecified countries. The source did not say that she was only dealing with the UK. 

 

The source also said that Yingluck wanted to finalise the matter, which is one reason why she had not been seen in public recently.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30330842

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-11-05

[Briggsy]

All moot, she will get a visa through investment. But an interesting hypothetical discussion.

[Samui Bodoh]

She is NOT going to be extradited, period.

 

She is a former Prime Minister in a country where the military overthrew the government. Under circumstances like this, former PMs are NOT extradited; it is an unwritten rule of international relations. Hasn't anyone noticed that Thaksin has been in almost every neighbouring country off and on for years, yet never is arrested? Not going to happen.

 

They should stop these nonsense stories. The only way Yingluck will ever come back is if she chooses to do so.

 

[Chang_paarp]

As said above, an interesting discussion. It misses the pint that if Yinluck applies for political asylum she can show a pattern of persecution of her and the members of her government.

 

It is the pattern of persecution  rather than the single event that will get her asylum, that, and the continued actions of the current government. The more they pursue their agenda the more they give food to the application.

[leeneeds]

Nicaraguan passport holder, she is,

shows what contempt she has for that country if no asylum is sought there,

obnoxious money 

 

[Ulysses G.]

Seems like she would have no problem. She was removed from office in a military coup.

[JAG]

A Thai academic speculating about what the United Kingdom Home Office may or may not do, and a junta minister taking it upon himself to speak for the United Kingdom government.

 

What is perhaps more interesting and relevant is that during the more than two months since she disappeared from view there have been no sightings or  contact from her. The Thaksin camp's silence is equally deafening.

A puzzle.

Edited November 5, 2017 by JAG

[phutoie2]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

Seems like she would have no problem. She was removed from office in a military coup.

Well she wasn't, but let's not go there or the junta fan boy club will be all over this again. She was removed from office by the CC.

Edited November 5, 2017 by phutoie2
Spilled my coffee

[jayboy]

I don't think she will apply for political asylum.From her point of view she doesn't need to because it's a long tedious process that she doesn't really need to get involved with.She can stay in the UK without it - so what's the point.

 

From the UK's point of view granting political asylum might seem like pissing off a friendly state (Thailand).

 

 

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

She is NOT going to be extradited, period.

 

She is a former Prime Minister in a country where the military overthrew the government. Under circumstances like this, former PMs are NOT extradited; it is an unwritten rule of international relations. Hasn't anyone noticed that Thaksin has been in almost every neighbouring country off and on for years, yet never is arrested? Not going to happen.

 

They should stop these nonsense stories. The only way Yingluck will ever come back is if she chooses to do so.

 

 

Don't think there is actually any outstanding request to Interpol or other countries direct from the Thai authorities regarding Thaksin. Although there outstanding arrest warrants here, there doesn't seem to be any inclination to try and serve them.

 

Unless you know different. 

 

The rules for billionaires are of course different than those for us mere mortals. She could buy UK citizenship as a rich investor with what's pocket change to her.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, JAG said:

A Thai academic speculating about what the United Kingdom Home Office may or may not do, and a junta minister taking it upon himself to speak for the United Kingdom government.

 

What is perhaps more interesting and relevant is that during the more than two months since she disappeared from view there have been no sightings or  contact from her. The Thaksin camp's silence is equally deafening.

A puzzle.

 

A puzzle - or a deal been done?

[Eric Loh]

3 hours ago, phutoie2 said:

Well she wasn't, but let's not go there or the junta fan boy club will be all over this again. She was removed from office by the CC.

A weak judiciary coup. Rest of the world probably scratching their head as to why a replacement of a civil servant can lead to an expulsion of an elected Prime Minister. 

[JAG]

34 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

A puzzle - or a deal been done?

Well perhaps; but if there is/was a deal then there must be something to ensure they remain silent.

As I said, a puzzle.

 

What's more, there don't seem to have been any of Thaksin's regular comments on the Junta since she slipped " off the radar", despite a number of political and legal moves which would certainly (are intended) to effect him.

A puzzle.

[gamini]

Fake gov - gov rice deals is hardly a case of persecution. Most posters appear to have been in Thailand a short time because they do not realise the case against her started before the coup and she was not removed by the junta

 

[Eric Loh]

IMHO I don’t think she is in any rush to seek political asylum. A condition in seeking political asylum is that you can’t involve in politics. Her silence for such a long period seem to suggest that she likely to be vocal when the time is right. I don’t think Thaksin and Yingluck will leave politics. They have some axe to grind. I believed the momentary silence for both are because of backroom politicking and seeking allies in strong positions against the military. Also the timing. Will see. 

[Mainhattencitizen]

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

She is NOT going to be extradited, period.

 

She is a former Prime Minister in a country where the military overthrew the government. Under circumstances like this, former PMs are NOT extradited; it is an unwritten rule of international relations. Hasn't anyone noticed that Thaksin has been in almost every neighbouring country off and on for years, yet never is arrested? Not going to happen.

 

They should stop these nonsense stories. The only way Yingluck will ever come back is if she chooses to do so.

 

This is exactly how it is and it is time for the Thais to stop writing these soap opera stories.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, gamini said:

Fake gov - gov rice deals is hardly a case of persecution.

Yingluck was not indicted in the fake G2G deals.

[robblok]

19 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Yingluck was not indicted in the fake G2G deals.

She was indicated in knowing about them but not stopping them negligence.. all with half a brain know why.. big brother cashed in on them by way of his friends. Problem was it is hard to prove so they went for what they could prove her negligence not the part that her family benefited from this scheme. 

[Bill Miller]

6 hours ago, JAG said:

"...a junta minister taking it upon himself to speak for the United Kingdom government."

That has me a bit puzzled too. I have doubts that the UK government would make such a pronouncement before application has been made and the judicial process concluded.
There is also a clause in the 1912 extradition treaty that seems to obviate that process if a person is convicted in absentia, which is arguably the case here.
Another point that seems odd is the change in statute of limitation, which appears to be directed specifically at Ms.Y, and is perhaps ipso post facto.
These elements would certainly be considered, and I have serious doubts that any nation, as evidenced by her brother's experience thus far, would consent to her extradition.
I hope the government does not expend too much time and resources pursuing this

[HHTel]

9 hours ago, rooster59 said:

There are conditions that will activate extradition and one of them is if an offender has been guilty of a crime that violates the laws of both their original country and the one where they are seeking asylum. This is called “double criminality”.

 

Consequently, if Yingluck’s offence under Thai law for negligence in state duty also violates any British law, she may well be extradited – if she is found in the UK and if Thailand makes such a request.

And there lies the problem if the Thai government seeks extradition.  As far as the UK is concerned (and most other countries),  she has not committed any crime.  'Negligence' is not a crime in the UK.

[jayboy]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

A puzzle - or a deal been done?

It's possible a deal or an outline of a deal has been agreed.There are various indications that something big is brewing.But who really know?

[hansnl]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Seems like she would have no problem. She was removed from office in a military coup.

There are military coups and then there are military coups.

If a military coup is executed in a time and situation of civil unrest, and said coup is more or less peacefully, there might be a difference with a bloody coup.

But, seen the money behind the Shinawatra family, it will probably be a very moot point.

Edited November 5, 2017 by hansnl

[jayboy]

59 minutes ago, robblok said:

She was indicated in knowing about them but not stopping them negligence.. all with half a brain know why.. big brother cashed in on them by way of his friends. Problem was it is hard to prove so they went for what they could prove her negligence not the part that her family benefited from this scheme. 

Your language is - to put it politely - not very precise.Do you have evidence for these accusations or is it just your personal opinion of what is likely.If the former please provide authoritative links.If the latter that's fine (though daft) but in future make it clear what is your opinion and what is verifiably true.

[Reigntax]

Won't be hard considering Prayuth's stated intention to remove the Shins.

[jayboy]

2 minutes ago, hansnl said:

There are military coups and then there are military coups.

If a military coup is executed in a time and situation of civil unrest, and said coup is more or less peacefully, there might be a difference with a bloody coup.

But, seen the money behind the Shinawatra family, it will probably be a very moot point.

Hmm.I suppose so but what about a military coup when senior generals have been part of the conspiracy to stir up civil unrest as a prelude to toppling a legitimate democratically government.

A better distinction is between military coups that have been planned and carried out with the active support or connivance of the usual suspects.These as with the last coups are perfectly OK.If however a military coup is attempted that hasn't been pre-approved by the old gang then the consequences can be painful. eg for General Chalard Hiranysiri in 1977 who was shot dead for his efforts without trial.No tears for the old brute however who was ultra violent in his attempt despite having spent the previous 5 months as a monk.His fellow plotters were set free.

 

[Eric Loh]

20 minutes ago, hansnl said:

There are military coups and then there are military coups.

If a military coup is executed in a time and situation of civil unrest, and said coup is more or less peacefully, there might be a difference with a bloody coup.

But, seen the money behind the Shinawatra family, it will probably be a very moot point.

Let me add to your ridiculous categorization of coups. What about coup when the generals felt that they have been left out of the feeding trough and time to enrich themselves. Wouldn’t that be a moot point. 

[farcanell]

10 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The Nation’s Wasamon Audjarint talked with Prasit Piwawatthanaphanit, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, on the general instruments involved with the political asylum-seeking procedure that may apply in Yingluck’s case, as well as the possibility of the UK extraditing her back to Thailand.

It’s nice to have an expert comes out to explain why yingluck will succeed in avoiding extradition ?

[chainarong]

Political asylum has been given for less than what Yingluk has experienced, controlled by the effervescent section 44 is a good start.......................................................................

[Chris Lawrence]

I just want to know who is to get the gold mine 260km north of Bangkok, that was protected under trade agreements but article 44 is trying to weasel its way in. The law is to protect people not promote self interest. She will be floating around big brother. Anyway there is plenty of them to take the places of the departed. I don't think the General will ever get rid of that thorn in his big toe.

[jippytum]

The pertinent  rule is that the applicant must apply for political  asylum in the first country visited .Not

Cambodia. Dubai. then  UK . Her brothers  passports where revoked after sentencing by Thailand courts so the UK  cancelled his UK visa when he visited China for the Olympics and he had to sell his interest in Manchester City FC.That's why he settled in Dubai.

If she does apply to the UK it is not a slam dunk . Other   prime ministers not subject to legal proceedings however such as  Chatichai  Choonhavan deposed by  a similar military coup  did reside  in the UK.